Bush and Intelligent Design

Well the MSM and secularist have stirred themselves up into another frenzy over nothing. President Bush was asked by the press about his views on Intelligent Design and teaching as theory in schools.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Seeing that this is WaPo you don't actually believe that they would place context properly? I'm sure Bush "told" the Texas newspaper reporters this unprompted. I'm sure he went out of his way to make a statement without being questioned on the subject. Also note that he made clear that this was a decision to be made locally and wasn't advocating it as national policy.

Of course, the liberals flipped out.

Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.

Let's see, he was asked regarding his opinion and he stated it. That is irresponsible how? What would Lynn suggest? Maybe he not answer the question or just state what the left wants to hear? I'd say Bush was being honest and forth right on his opinion and ensured that it was understood to be such. I see nothing unreasonable or irresponsible in what Bush said.

That being said, I disagree with his viewpoint. ID is not science and shouldn't be offered as theory along side scientific theories like evolution. ID has nothing that can be tested. ID is built upon evolutionary theory in anycase. It adds nothing to the scientific hypothesis that is in any way testable.

Beyond science, is ID plausible? Sure. When you get into philosophy and metaphysics you tread into regions where all that is important is belief. Evolution vs. ID really separates when you discuss causation. ID points to an intelligent force acting for change while evolution seems to prefer random chance. That in itself has actually become a large argument between these theories. Again, this is not testable. So falls outside of the realm of scientific theory.

The link I provide above on ID has a discussion of the various ID arguments and scientific criticisms to those arguments. Their theory is interesting, but still not science.